Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1381367 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: Correctly handle nohz ticks cpu load accounting

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: Correctly handle nohz ticks cpu load  accounting Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2016-04-18 10:30 +0200

#1381367 — Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: Correctly handle nohz ticks cpu load accounting

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:56:51PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> @@ -4524,12 +4523,12 @@ decay_load_missed(unsigned long load, unsigned long missed_updates, int idx)
>   *   load[i]_n = (1 - 1/2^i)^n * load[i]_0
>   *
>   * see decay_load_misses(). For NOHZ_FULL we get to subtract and add the extra
> - * term. See the @active paramter.
> + * term.
>   */
> -static void __cpu_load_update(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
> -			      unsigned long pending_updates, int active)
> +static void cpu_load_update(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
> +			    unsigned long pending_updates)
>  {
> -	unsigned long tickless_load = active ? this_rq->cpu_load[0] : 0;
> +	unsigned long tickless_load = this_rq->cpu_load[0];

Hello,

Good for my humble code to be fixed so we can write it like this here.

> @@ -4618,26 +4617,56 @@ static void cpu_load_update_idle(struct rq *this_rq)
>  	if (weighted_cpuload(cpu_of(this_rq)))
>  		return;
>  
> -	__cpu_load_update_nohz(this_rq, READ_ONCE(jiffies), 0, 0);
> +	cpu_load_update_nohz(this_rq, READ_ONCE(jiffies), 0);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * Called from tick_nohz_idle_exit() -- try and fix up the ticks we missed.
> + * Record CPU load on nohz entry so we know the tickless load to account
> + * on nohz exit. cpu_load[0] happens then to be updated more frequently
> + * than other cpu_load[idx] but it should be fine as cpu_load readers
> + * shouldn't rely into synchronized cpu_load[*] updates.
>   */
> -void cpu_load_update_nohz(int active)
> +void cpu_load_update_nohz_start(void)
>  {
>  	struct rq *this_rq = this_rq();
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * This is all lockless but should be fine. If weighted_cpuload changes
> +	 * concurrently we'll exit nohz. And cpu_load write can race with
> +	 * cpu_load_update_idle() but both updater would be writing the same.
> +	 */
> +	this_rq->cpu_load[0] = weighted_cpuload(cpu_of(this_rq));

Like it.

> +/*
> + * Account the tickless load in the end of a nohz frame.
> + */
> +void cpu_load_update_nohz_stop(void)
> +{
>  	unsigned long curr_jiffies = READ_ONCE(jiffies);
> -	unsigned long load = active ? weighted_cpuload(cpu_of(this_rq)) : 0;
> +	struct rq *this_rq = this_rq();
> +	unsigned long load;
>  
>  	if (curr_jiffies == this_rq->last_load_update_tick)
>  		return;
>  
> +	load = weighted_cpuload(cpu_of(this_rq));

Like it.

> @@ -4645,11 +4674,11 @@ void cpu_load_update_nohz(int active)
>  void cpu_load_update_active(struct rq *this_rq)
>  {
>  	unsigned long load = weighted_cpuload(cpu_of(this_rq));
> -	/*
> -	 * See the mess around cpu_load_update_idle() / cpu_load_update_nohz().
> -	 */
> -	this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies;
> -	__cpu_load_update(this_rq, load, 1, 1);
> +
> +	if (tick_nohz_tick_stopped())
> +		cpu_load_update_nohz(this_rq, READ_ONCE(jiffies), load);
> +	else
> +		cpu_load_update_periodic(this_rq, load);

Oh! We have missed it until now. Terrible.. :-(

Thank you,
Byungchul

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web